Five degrees of separation

In a footnote to the previous post, I suggested that a recent collaboration would lower my Erdős Number to 5.

On the basis of having checked a long time ago, I knew that my Erdős Number was at most 6 on account of having coauthored with Craig Callender.

Since then, however, Craig has also collaborated with more people. So his Erdős Number went down to 4 years ago, meaning that mine was already 5 or less. The new paper just means that there are multiple paths by which I’m entitled to an Erdős Number of 5.1

Updated drafts with ten different coauthors

Updated drafts posted in the last few weeks:

* Who’s sorry now: User preferences among Rote, Empathic, and Explanatory apologies from LLM chatbots, with Zahra Ashktorab, Alessandra Buccella, Jason D’Cruz, Zoë Fowler, Andrew Gill, Kei Leung, John Richards, and Kush R. Varshney2

* Chatbot apologies: Beyond bullshit, with Alessandra Buccella and Jason D’Cruz

* Music genres as historical individuals, with Emmie Malone and Brandon Polite

A falswiftiable hypothesis

It’s not very often that philosophers make empirically testable predictions, but it’s happened.

In considering whether Taylor Swift’s rerecording of her songs are covers of her earlier tracks, my coauthors and I asked what would happen if she were to acquire rights to her original recordings. We conjectured: She wouldn’t rerecord the remaining albums. We took this to show that her motive was commercial displacement of the original— a typical function for early covers, one that’s often cited to explain the etymology of the term itself (“covering over”).

Now Swift has bought the rights to her earlier records. Recording was complete for the new version of her debut album. Those tracks may be released at some point, but a doppleganger album doesn’t have the same rationale it did before. She hadn’t gotten very far in rerecording her album Reputation, though, and now there won’t be new versions of the tracks from that album at all.

The thought experiment is made real, y’all, and we are vindicated.

Continue reading “A falswiftiable hypothesis”

Higher-order bullshit

Three snapshot applications of AI:

During early phases of the war in Gaza, the Israeli military used software to select bombing targets on a scale that would not have been possible for human analysts.3

During the Trump administration’s initial attack on the federal government, there was lots of nonsense about how Elon Musk and DOGE were using software to identify waste. House Speaker Mike Johnson commented that Musk has “created these algorithms that are constantly crawling through the data, and… the data doesn’t lie.”4

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. commissioned a report with the ridiculous title “Make America Healthy Again.”5 It turns out that many of the citations in the study are erroneous, including references to articles which simply do not exist. Incorrectly citing things and misrepresenting results is plausibly human malfeasance or incompetence, but totally inventing sources suggests chatbot hallucination.

The wrongs committed here are morally different, and I don’t want to suggest a false equivalence. But each of these cases provides a specimen of how reliance on AI has been used to further dangerous agendas. Yet the reliance on AI is really just a sideshow.

Continue reading “Higher-order bullshit”

Fun with fallacies

A couple of months ago, I made note of the neosemantic fallacy: “the magic of neologisms, which encourage [one] to infer that a new word refers to a new kind of thing.”6

I realized yesterday that it was just a flavor of the fallacy of reification. JS Mill characterized this as the tendency “to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or thing, having an independent existence of its own.”

The fact that giving reification a new name made me think of it as a distinct fallacy means that I committed the neosemantic fallacy in my earlier post. So, although it’s not the autological fallacy, it is an autological fallacy.7

The futility of fine distinctions

It is now commonplace to point out that economic exchange can and should be positive-sum: When it works well, both buyers and sellers get more value than they would by not participating. This is followed up by saying that Trump thinks of exchange as zero-sum: Any time one side gets value, then they must be taking it from the other. It now seems to me that this is wrong about Trump— not unfair, but wrong.

The current tariff strategy is, even in his vision for it, a negative-sum gambit. He is willing to crash the whole plane, because he thinks that he and the USA will be on the top of the hierarchy among the people scrambling for survival among the wreckage.

The ones who walk away from sound medical advice

Someone goes to the doctor. Patient says: Doc, I’m depressed. Life seems harsh and cruel. I feel alone in a threatening world.

Doctor says: You should go to Omelas. They have this kid chained up in the basement which makes life awesome and great in the city. Some time there will pep you right up.

Patient says: But Doctor… I am the kid chained in the basement.

Everybody laughs. Drum roll. Curtains.

Ignoratio elenchi, of sorts

Via ABC news:

In a sworn declaration, ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Robert Cerna argued that “the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose” and “demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”

The fact that ICE knows nothing about them proves that they are dangerous criminals?!? Although the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither is it evidence of dire terrorism.